from the huh? dept

The delusions of the MPAA are really impressive sometimes. For years, they've been pushing to make search engines like Google liable for blocking sites they don't like. That was a key provision in SOPA -- that it would force "information location services" to disappear links to sites deemed "dedicated" to infringement. Of course, as we've noted, it was only after SOPA failed that Hollywood finally started using the tools already available to it to ask Google to remove links to infringing works. At the same time, we noted that the fact that Google is now processing an astounding 2.5 million DMCA takedown notices a week suggests that something is really, really broken. We meant copyright law itself -- but our good friends at the MPAA went in the other direction, and suggested it showed how Google needs to do more, and how artists are overly burdened by the DMCA:

There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows. According to Google, they receive 2.5 million takedown requests per week – and that data does not even include YouTube, where an enormous amount of infringement takes place. That means that by Google’s own accounting, millions of times each week creators are forced to raise a complaint with Google that the company is facilitating the theft of their work and ask that the infringing work or the link to that work be removed. Often, even when the links are removed, they pop right back up a few hours later. That’s not a reasonable -- or sustainable -- system for anyone....

We couldn’t agree more with Google that this data shows that our current system is not working – for creators, or for Google. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that it also confirms the important role that Google has to play in helping curb the theft of creative works while protecting an Internet that works for everyone. We look forward to continuing to work with them to tackle this urgent challenge.

Now, I agree that it's difficult for copyright holders (often not the actual creators, as the MPAA falsely implies) to have to monitor and track all of this stuff. That's a big burden. But... the MPAA ridiculously implies that there are only two options here: (1) "Creators" keep filing DMCA takedowns or (2) Google has to do more. That ignores reality in multiple ways. First off, the staggering number of bogus takedowns highlights the key point that we've made all along, which is that the only party who actually knows if a work is infringing is the copyright holder -- and even then, they often seem to get confused. Somehow thinking that a third party with no direct knowledge can somehow do more or should be more responsible is a little silly.

But the bigger issue is that this assumes -- as the MPAA always seems to assume -- that the only response to infringement is "more enforcement." What it seems to refuse to consider is that there's another path: it's the path in which the MPAA studios stop focusing so much on beating everyone with a stick, and start fixing the broken parts of their business model. Time and time again the evidence shows that if you offer people what they want, at a reasonable price, and with convenience, they pay -- and the "problem" of copyright infringement shrinks to being minimal (or, in some cases, it actually helps you). So, a rational individual or organization would look at the scale of the "problem" that the MPAA is talking about, along with all of the historical data on how little enforcement does to get people to actually buy -- and realize that perhaps that strategy is a mistake. Even the MPAA admits in this very post that the works often pop back up online.

Maybe -- just maybe -- the problem isn't search engines not doing enough, but rather the strategy that focuses on the stick of enforcement, rather than the carrot of providing consumers more of what they want. I recognize it's a crazy idea, especially at the MPAA -- where they have a whole freaking division of "content protection" VPs who need to justify their giant salaries, rather than a division for helping filmmakers embrace useful business models -- but it seems like a more productive path forward.

Oh, and one other thing. Could the MPAA stop with its bullshit claims that enforcing copyright couldn't possibly have an impact on free speech? This blog post has this in it:

One thing that’s important to make clear in any serious discussion about tackling online theft: absolutely no one is advocating for the restriction of speech on the Internet. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of the Internet, and a cornerstone of the film community, which has spent the last century advocating for artists to be able to express themselves freely on the screen. Removing infringing works online isn’t limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish.

If the only thing taken down due to copyright claims was "infringing works," they'd have a point. But it's not. Copyright claims are used all the time to censor or take down sites or content that people just don't like. That's the concern. The massive expansion of copyright law and broad tools like the DMCA's notice-and-takedown lead to massive amounts of collateral damage that -- absolutely and without question -- infringe on free speech rights. Until the MPAA is willing to acknowledge that simple fact, it's difficult to take the organization seriously.

Here is an experiment that the MPAA could try. Go on a 6-month hiatus. Stop sending out DCMA notices (or paying other people to do it for you). Leave other things the same, such as DVD prices and your deals with streaming services. See if movie revenue jumps from things like DVD sales and streaming. If you are right then piracy should blossom in the absence of notices and your profits will spike. Then you might have a case against Google. What do you have to loose? Obviously your current strategy is not working. A plus is that you would save the money that it costs to send all of those DCMA notices. You might even find Google and other potential partners a bit more willing to make a deal with you.

And then here is an experiment for the next six months. Stop playing with release dates and geographic restrictions for six months. Give windowing a 6-month vacation. While you are at it, provide Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other streaming services some decent programming for the period. See if profits climb or piracy rates plummet. A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.

Re: Re: Re:

Actually...in a lot of cases it's not the content *producers*, but the product *distributors* that are doing this. There's plenty of artists who couldn't give two squirts about this (and then there's Psy, who's made a s**tload of money *because* of it), it's the middle-men who are having hissy fits.

Of course the most entertaining outcome of this is the left-hand/right-hand incidents...where they issue a take down notice on their *own*, supposedly legitimate YouTube channel over infringing content. :-)

Links are not infringing

I suspect that millions of the take downs are for *links* to websites that have infringing content as opposed to infringing content hosting by Google itself. Google shouldn't have to take down links as they accurately reflect what is on the web. Should Google maps have to remove the street number of an alleged crack house? No. The street numbers aren't a violation. Nor should Google be removing links.

MPAA (et al) try to show how new technology is bad and ask the speedy legal system to stop pirates.

Meanwhile the pirates embrace new technology/solutions to get what the MPAA (et al) doesn't want them to have.

MPAA claims that the pirates are winning. Hmmm I wonder why?

What would the pirates have left if the MPAA embraced new technology and made up for lost revenue via ads, and other internet based money making schemes? Is the MPAA afraid they'd make enough to actually have to pay artists if they did that?

This story doesn't even need to go as in depth as it does; the claim fails almost out of the gate by assuming that all of the over 2.5 million complaints are valid.

So, how many of those complaints are invalid almost off the bat due to either the use being clearly allowed or the claim being for content not owned or the content claimed not even appearing on the site in question? If it's anything more than 10% (and it's more than that), that number starts going down fast. Also filter out duplicate claims and I'd be surprised if even half the amount are legitimate.

Re:

IP extremists seem to think that IP should be all about them. It should not. It should not be about the IP cartels, it should not be about the middlemen, it should not be about the IP holders, it should not be about the creators. If it should even exist it should only be about the public interest.

The IP cartels need to get lost. IP extremists act as if they're entitled to free IP privileges when they're not and they don't want to sacrifice anything but they want the rest of the world to make these huge sacrifices just to enforce their IP privileges. If IP law is such a huge burden on everyone else (everyone else being who these laws should serve) then they should get lost. The public is being denied many useful services because of these laws and that's not acceptable (ie: Megaupload among many others).

IP lengths keep getting ridiculously extended at the will of IP extremists who provide campaign contributions and revolving door favors in return. I can go on about how these laws exist solely for the interests, at the will, of IP extremists and not the public. These laws are not about the public interest and they should be abolished. I want IP laws abolished. I want govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies gone, I'm sick and tired of mainstream media propaganda being used to brainwash the public and keep them ignorant. I'm sick and tired of Internet services in the U.S. costing more than many other countries and being much slower with all sorts of limitations (ie: caps). I'm sick and tired of cable costing a fortune to provide nothing but commercials. I'm sick and tired of broadcasting spectra monopolies denying me my natural right to broadcast on various frequencies as I please simply so that broadcasters can bombard us with advertisements. This needs to change. Our plutocratic social structure needs to change. Govt. established taxi cab monopolies need to go away. All patents need to vanish. All of the many many anti-competitive laws need to disappear.

This is why Google is f@$%ing for ever listening to any of their demands, and not just taking them straight to court over using the DMCA to take down "links" to (allegedly) copyrighted material, and end this lunacy once and for all.

Instead what did they do? They didn't listen to our warning that if they give MPAA a finger they'll take the whole arm, and then some. And now this is exactly what's happening. Google made it easier for them to send more DMCA notices, and no what do they do? Of course, they ask for MORE!!

" Removing infringing works online isnít limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish."

Gangnam Style wouldn't have even made a mention in the US if people had not made a bajillion plays on it and PSY let them get away with it. Sounds like his creativity and hard work paid off in the name recognition he has now. Isn't that why people make art, to get their name out there and known to the world at large?

Re:

ex-freaking-actly ! ! !

*IF* psy had been a MAFIAA-type asshole, he'd have a locked-down, faintly amusing ditty/video that NO ONE beyond korea would have seen, much less gone viral...
instead, he lets it escape into OUR collective culture and it blows up beyond his -or anyone's- wildest expectation...

WE DID THAT...
REPEAT: WE did that, *NOT* some crappy record label, *not* some PR droids, *not* some massive disneyesque media campaign polluting every corner of our culture: WE did it, simply by LIKING it...

psy was just either smart enough, generous enough, or simply said WTF, and *allowed* what happened to happen...

in a VERY REAL sense, that song is OURS, WE made it what it is... (as is the case with ALL culture: WE own it, WE make it, WE decide what is 'good'/'bad'/'new'/'old'/whatever...
WE do, NOT you, Mr. Bigshot media execudroid POS...

we don't NEED gatekeepers deciding what we do/don't like, we need them to get the hell out of the way and let US define OUR own culture...

Re:

'Criminals obey gun control laws in the same manner politicians follow their oath of office.'"

This is absolutely off topic but I have to say it: Criminals don't shoot up schools and movie theaters. They have too much to lose, i.e their drug money, stolen goods, rapes, whatever.

Semiautomatic-gun bans don't protect us from criminals. They protect us from noncriminals who feel overwhemingly compelled to start breaking the law. Noncriminals who snap break the gun control law and we get them before they proceed to breaking the murder law.

Gangnam in the usa

I'm sure most US-based record labels wish they had "Gangnam Style" as one of their own. If they did, they would have buried every parody with DCMA takedowns and killed the reach of it (and the revenue along with it).

I don't want my money going to the MAFFIA. Since anything I would buy from them will have a slice going to those outfits, I choose not to buy anything from them. I congratulate them on ending the purchasing habits of one customer through their actions.

I've went from buying around $500 a year to nothing and its remained at that level for years. I see no value in DRM other than a hindrance. I also believe most entertainment to be priced too expensively.

Since I am not exposed to new music I have no desire to buy new stuff. In the process they've poisoned radio and are working hard on doing the same to the internet. Should the day come that I see no value in the internet, I'll cut that bill too.

Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

"Such as the fact that Google CHECKING 10 MILLION notices a month at a 97.5% accuracy rate as told by Google proves that it CAN BE DONE AND NEEDS TO BE DONE."

Who said anything about a 97.5% accuracy rate? That Google has complied with 97.5% of all DMCA takedown requests does not in any way suggest that 97.5% of requests are legitimate. Google doesn't get to decide what is or is not infringement: they either comply with proper DMCA takedown requests or they face liability for their users' content.

Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

"The company also claims that it does the ensuing takedown in an average of just six hours -- even with having someone review each and every takedown, and even rejecting a few. They reject about 2.5% of takedown notices."

Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

You are willfully misinterpreting Masnick's words there. Rejecting 2.5% of all takedown notices doesn't imply 97.5% accuracy. All it means is Google is convinced the copyright holder crossed all the T's and dotted all the i's on the DMCA notice. It says nothing at all about whether the works taken down are infringing or not.

Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

STFU. Why do you post here? You will never change anybody's mind. You just spout stupid stuff about Mike and contribute nothing to anything. You are wasting your time and making yourself look dumb. Stop posting, idiot.

RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

"STFU. Why do you post here? You will never change anybody's mind. You just spout stupid stuff about Mike and contribute nothing to anything. You are wasting your time and making yourself look dumb. Stop posting, idiot."

Re: Re: Lawsuite Coming?

"There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows."

Facilitation implies intent. Google's intentions are not to encourage copyright infringement, but to index as much of the World Wide Web as possible. This necessarily includes indexing infringing content and pages containing links to that content. All Google is doing is making note of what's out there to be found. To call this facilitation (or, indeed, contributory infringement) is both dishonest and unfair to Google.

Re:

Exactly. I wonder how many new pages their webcrawler digs up. Probably a lot more than the takedowns. How many hits to non-infringing content doe Google facilitate? The *AA's just want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

MANY of the pieces on Techdirt are hair-splitting legalisms supporting the symbiotic system that skates on the very edge of overt commercial infringement. Mike maintains the following sequence is perfectly legal, even protected "free speech":

1) anonymous up-loaders have a "right" to transfer ("share") whatever data they wish to wherever they wish because it's not commercial infringement;

2) so that commercial scale file hosts can claim they're NOT infringing copyright because have no knowledge as to whether full-length movie data is copyrighted and NOT "fair use" -- with the extra twist of can't have such knowledge because are too many files to check! -- meanwhile, with the draw of providing for free someone else's valuable copyrighted content, the file hosts directly sell premium access speed plus get advertising revenue;

3) so that links sites announcing the infringing but "free" content can also draw eyeballs to advertising for income;

4) so that anonymous down-loaders can get the valuable content for free.

Note that except perhaps (one time) for the up-loader, NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content. But ALL depend upon getting FREE content: it's a "business model" that can ignore the "sunk (or fixed) costs" for a $100M movie to focus only on bandwidth costs EXACTLY as in Mike's "can't compete" piece! -- I say that's NOT coincidence.

Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

Sorry, OOTB, you don't get to blame all your woes on Google for facilitating piracy. What you're seeing right now in the movie industry is the direct result of disregarding the age-old wisdom: "don't shit where you eat." Your industry has crapped all over itself in some of the most disgusting money-grabs of all time.
It is absolutely unacceptable that George Lucas became a gazillionaire off of Star Wars, yet the guy who played Darth Vader hasn't seen a dime because the movie hasn't profited yet.

THAT'S why you can't make a profit on your $100M project. It's doomed from conception because of the toxic environment you would perpetuate.

Re: Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

"NONE of those entities pay one cent"

Obviously I won't waste my time with the original troll post, but this idea that everyone who watches something "should have paid ... whoever produced the content" does not come from or support the industry.

When lobbyists talk about "digital theft" they mean lost sales. The idea is incorrect in context, but out of context, as "NONE paid and this is bad," it's gibberish. People enjoy commercial-subsidized and subscription-based video and music (and even nonprofit free video and music) all the time and the industry loves it. They want to get paid, not get customers to pay. As always, trolls aren't helping content creators.

Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

You're really upset about all the money being made off of free content by file hosts, link sites, etc. If it really is a substantial amount, and piracy is really killing you, then the solution seems simple. Get into the file hosting and linking business, and do a really good job of it. Problem solved; no finger pointing needed.

Now, I agree that it's difficult for copyright holders (often not the actual creators, as the MPAA falsely implies) to have to monitor and track all of this stuff.

In a world with greater creator access to fans and fewer gatekeepers, where creators=copyright holders they will be at a significant disadvantage. The AA's have costly, sophisticated operations that lead to these filings. How would a small creator/copyright holder hope to protect her work?

Why stop at however many levels of indirection Google is at? What about the people who set up the networks, the cables, the people who manufacture the servers? What about the farmers who feed these people and those who make clothes for them?

How about Google asks the MPAA and RIAA to build and provide them with access to a definite database containi9ng copies of all their copyrighted works, along with the computing powers to make matches to copyrighted works. This database to also include details of which sites are licensed to have copies of the works, along with details of the copyright holders. The search engines could then feed them links for verification before they indexed them.
I can see the MPAA and RIAA claiming that it is too expensive and would take too long to set up such a system. The search engines could then tell the MPAA and RIAA to go away until such time as they provide the tools needed for them to do as they want.

Google those websites that are infringing.

Google provides the MAFIAA with a way locating the infringing works. They should be happy.

But aside from all that. Can we all stop distorting facts to serve a purpose. No one here at Techdirt wants those that provide us with great entertainment to not get paid for doing so. We all want those people doing the work of creating the next Ice, Ice Baby song or the next 49.5 Shades of Off White to get paid a worthy sum of money for bringing us those points of entertainment. They did the work and thus should get paid.

But too often in the pursuit of the top level goal we distort facts to our liking.

Sure the MAFIAA does it more than any group. They have shown time and time again it is not about profit for their members but profit for their bottom line. But it is also not acceptable to just say people are going to copy so deal with it.

Techdirt has does a good job of presenting alternative ways for content creators to make money. And it seems to a degree that some are listening.

So in some way, shape or form the content creators need to be informed of new ways to leverage their content for monetary awards. The MAFIAA should lead that charge to educate and inform.

You know why they won't? (This is the main reason why the MAFIAA sticks to its outdated stance) Because they can't control the flow of money to the content creators. They have no way to make sure they get their cut.

If the only thing taken down due to copyright claims was "infringing works," they'd have a point. But it's not. Copyright claims are used all the time to censor or take down sites or content that people just don't like. That's the concern. The massive expansion of copyright law and broad tools like the DMCA's notice-and-takedown lead to massive amounts of collateral damage that -- absolutely and without question -- infringe on free speech rights. Until the MPAA is willing to acknowledge that simple fact, it's difficult to take the organization seriously.

Isn't that kind of the failsafe SOPA offered? Judicial review and an adversarial hearing?

Maybe you could pose what would be a fair and effective way to deal with infringement instead of criticizing any enforcement avenue available.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"Fair" doesn't come into law. And nor should it. When it comes to Perceptional Property, there should be no "fairness", nor should there be "compensatory" language for anyone other than the actual creator.

Here are three changes that make this problem go away:

1) Make everything non-transferable, but waivable;
2) Make the exclusivity last two years ONLY;
3) Revoke all Perceptional Property up until that point.

Re: Re: Re:

Well for one they'd include a few things that are rather noticeably lacking in the current laws. Such radical notions as:

-Due process. Both sides are allowed to present their case before any action is taken.

-Punishment for abuses of the system. Currently there isn't any, therefor there is no reason at all for the people abusing the system to stop.

-Evidence based legislation/laws/punishment. If an agency/company/person is going to claim that someone, or some company is costing them thousands, millions or billions of dollars, it should be a requirement that they provide verifiable proof, from multiple sources, before their claims are accepted as accurate and any actions are taken based upon their claims.

At the very least it needs to be toned down so infringement have a very narrow scope, because right now it is obvious that there are no amount of money or man power that will make this work in a free open society in its current form.

Re: Re:

Obviously you are one of the many who opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it. Judicial action was targeted against rogue website "dedicated to infringe content". Not tens of millions or individual files. Truly, ignorance is bliss.

Re: Re: Re:

You're ignoring the context of your original post here. You suggested that SOPA would have been an answer to the collateral damage but if it only reviewed anything at the site level it clearly wouldn't be. So either 10 million requests per month or it doesn't do at all the thing you suggested it would do in your OP.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What do you not understand about the standard "dedicated to infringing activity"? Are you seriously suggesting a pirate site should be able to inoculate itself against enforcement by offering 99% infringing works and 1% public domain content? That constitutes a judicial threshold, and a hearing provides the opportunity for the site owner to challenge whether their business meets that standard.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you do think it's ok for a website to be immunized as long as it offers a single non-infringing work. Interesting. I guess that you'd be ok with a child porn site being beyond the reach of law enforcement because it too offered a single legal piece of content?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do you realise how weak and desperate your argument looks when you need to bring up child porn to try to make a point? Society has a completely different attitude to copyright infringement that it does to child porn, so your attempt to imply any similarity is a waste of effort that does your cause more harm than good.

We see right through you, AC.

Very well stated, JMT. Also notice how he doesn't answer what is a very valid and concerning question, especially in light of how we're already seeing the DMCA constantly abused. Makes it very easy to see right through his charade. Talk about transparent!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What do you not understand about the standard "dedicated to infringing activity"?

From the "Manager's Amendment" of SOPA, a website is "dedicated to infringing activity" if it has U.S. users, and:

(i) the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of [U.S. copyright or trademark laws]; or

(ii) the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

The words are particularly weaselly: "primarily," "limited purpose." There's no hard-and-fast rule. If the site offers 60% infringing content, 39% copyrighted-but-not-infringing content, and 1% public domain content, is it "dedicated to infringing activity?" It certainly could be.

Also note the words "marketed" and "promoted." Any site that said "Download free movies!" in its marketing campaign could meet this standard, whether or not any infringement actually occurred at all.

There was no explicit "judicial threshold." The law was completely vague. It would have been horrible had it passed.

a hearing provides the opportunity for the site owner to challenge whether their business meets that standard.

All of the actions taken by SOPA and PIPA required notice only. No hearing would have been required.

That includes actions regarding domain name registrars, search engines, and payment processors. You would have been "disappeared" from all of these, prior to any kind of adversarial process.

And those registrars, search engines, and payment processors would also have been targeted by judicial action - something you conveniently ignore.

So, let's stop spewing the SOPA/PIPA apologia. They were both abominable bills, and it's good for everyone that they died a horrible, screaming death.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"Obviously you are one of the many who opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it. Judicial action was targeted against rogue website "dedicated to infringe content". Not tens of millions or individual files. Truly, ignorance is bliss."

The troll was the one who proposed that SOPA would have addressed tens of millions or individual files. Are you saying the troll opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it?

Re:

Oh and please don't come crying afterwards saying that people don't care and need to be proded to respect it, because really, you people started the disrespect and attacks against the public and they will give back as good as they get it, this should send shivers through your spine, because of how you people act towards others.

funny how the MPAA didn't mention the millions of false take downs Google has to deal with each week, the majority of which are instigated, if not issued by the entertainment industries. but then, doing that would allow the truth to be broadcast and the industries dont want anyone seeing that, do they! imagine what would happen if the 'encouraged' politicians actually saw, acknowledged and acted on the truth, rather than the absolute bollocks the entertainment industries just keep putting out! what is needed are some balls here and more of the same that is happening atm in Aussie where iiNet has told the industries the truth and refused to to their dirty work!! hopefully, there will be more ISPs and search engines etc doing the same thing!

" There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and†much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows. According to Google, they receive 2.5 million takedown requests per week Ė and that data does not even include YouTube, where an enormous amount of infringement takes place. That means that by Googleís own accounting, millions of times each week creators are forced to raise a complaint with Google that the company is facilitating the theft of their work and ask that the infringing work or the link to that work be removed. Often, even when the links are removed, they pop right back up a few hours later. Thatís not a reasonable -- or sustainable -- system for anyone....†"

Sounds to me as if their specifically attacking a culture, no just one or two individuals, but in their own words, millions.

What for?
Profit?
Control?

Profit/control Vs culture

Its time these corp heads get together to design a system where all media is imediatly available worldwide, with an option to pay per view for those who want it, but to imitate the "consume as much as you want aspect", a cheap and affordable monthly subscription is what you'll need, and to maximize customers.
Provide many payment methods, cash for monthly vouchers sold in retail would'nt be a bad idea for the less developed areas

Untill i start hearing these kind of subjects being brought up by "media providers", i will just assume them to be anti human rights

Re:

Untill i start hearing these kind of subjects being brought up by "media providers", i will just assume them to be anti human rights

Interesting point. The human rights of creators to profit from their creations is enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations of human rights. No where is your right to get whatever you want, whenever you want it mentioned. So if you want to talk about human rights, let's first talk about creators who already have recognized rights that are being violated every day.

Re: Re:

The human rights of creators to profit from their creations is enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations of human rights.

The "right to profit from their creations" is not the same as the "right to copyright."

Creators don't have any "human rights" above and beyond what other workers have. Creators' human rights are served equally as well with, say, work-for-hire arrangements - the same kind that every other worker on the planet has.

Also, some of the "human rights" that are "enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations" (the so-called "moral rights") are rights that are not recognized by the U.S., among others.

The general comments from the U.N., specifically regarding these rights, says this outright:

Whereas the human right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from oneís scientific, literary and artistic productions safeguards the personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities, or other groups and their collective cultural heritage, as well as their basic material interests which are necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living, intellectual property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments. Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author provided for by article 15, paragraph 1 (c), does not necessarily coincide with what is referred to as intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.

It is therefore important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized in article 15, paragraph 1 (c). [...]

Under the existing international treaty protection regimes, legal entities are included among the holders of intellectual property rights. However, as noted above, their entitlements, because of their different nature, are not protected at the level of human rights.

You're also leaving out the other portions of that section on human rights. All humans, everywhere, have the right: "To take part in cultural life; [and] To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications."

When what you "want" is culture, then you absolutely do have a human right "to get whatever you want, whenever you want it." And it says so right in the U.N. human rights resolution.

Techdirt already examined this issue in depth. I suggest you actually read the article, and the U.N. human rights declarations themselves. Both make it clear that you're wrong.

Re: Re: Re:

Sorry; the quote about taking part in cultural life was from the general comments. The actual U.N. resolution (which is part of the same section as the one dealing with authors' rights) makes things even more clear:

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

We also should not overlook Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

By MPAA logic...

Weird How it Goes One Way...

It's funny that I still find myself unable to sue the RIAA for supporting artists many consider to be the sole cause of the rise in cancer incidence. I'd be inclined to sue the twits blaring there opinion as to what jumble of sounds constitute "music," but, as a nod to the more obnoxious popularity lists like Bing, I'd rather not shoot the messenger just because I don't agree with them... unless I can buy a few senators, that is.

Re:

If Google disappeared tomorrow, none of their problems would be solved. Nothing would change.

Never mind Google, if the Internet went away, piracy would continue, it is all too easy to exchange files directly (via bluetooth) or via flash storage. In fact these routes probable exceed the Internet now as a means of piracy.

Re: Re:

Yes, because we all know that 'piracy' started the moment that 'Red Al' the Gorer launched the Good Ship 'Intertubes' down the Information Superseaway and started raiding innocent monopolist gateways, all the while giving low-born creators many more routes to market their goods.

Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

Stupid question from north of the border. If you issue a DMCA taken down that is false, and you can not show that you did due diligence before issuing it, is this a violation of the 4th amendment rights of people using the site? By preventing them from seeing the content, are you limiting the views and expressions that the person can make?

If the above is true, could a class action lawset by filled on behalf of all of the registered users of the site? Popular sites would become very expensive to send improper DMCA takedowns.

Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

Um, you might want to change what amendment you're talking about. The 4th Amendment is about safeguarding your person and effects from intrusive police searches. You must mean the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech.

Re: Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

To be fair, the 4th Amendment often comes up in prior restraint cases where First Amendment-related seizures are concerned.

But, yeah, that wouldn't apply to bogus takedown notices.

And, yes, before you issue a takedown notice, you're supposed to take fair use into account. But all that's required is a pre-takedown good-faith belief that it's not fair use, and you're off the hook. It doesn't actually have to fail a fair use analysis (or even be what a reasonable person would believe fails a fair use analysis).

It's one of the many ways the deck is stacked in copyright holders' favor when it comes to the DMCA.

I can't believe the MPAA hasn't figured out how to stop piracy. It is so extremely simple and it's being facilitated by the very people trying to stop it.

Are you ready for the secret?....

They just have to remove their eyes. YES! It is THAT simple. It's not just anyone's eyes mind you, it is only a solution for those people that are afraid of piracy.

You see, their eyes facilitate the data about piracy, if they don't have the data, then there is no piracy! Otherwise what would the point of putting pressure on Google to stop piracy. Google not able to stop the practice of piracy, it can only to provide information about people practicing piracy.

OH! I appear to be on a roll with great ideas, I just thought of how to help the RIAA with piracy!....

I am not going to see The Hobbit even though I do love Tolkien and still own my paperback of The Hobbit which I got in 1968.
I so hate the MAFIAA.
Love to see Google charge them extra for all those DMCA Takedown Notices that are false.

Implicate the criminals at the USPS!

Well, hey! Who is to say all of those packages the US Postal Service ships don't have pirated materials in them? Are they "facilitating" piracy by allowing those packages to be shipped? Should the USPS search every single package, and the data contained within them to "verify" that no piracy is taking place?

The MAFIAA is trying to fight human nature, which is sharing and communicating with each other. The only thing that's 'broken' is the MAFIAA's oppressive tactics, which goes against the natural order of of how people operate.

Takedown Methodologies

Does anyone have any insight into the actual methodology Google is using to do this purportedly manual work? Crowdsourced labor (e.g. Mechanical Turk)? If there are testing algorithms in play, any insight into how they are programmed or managed?